STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. JUGALKISHOR RAMESHWAR MALPANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal Challenges The Legality And Correctness Of Judgment and order dated 26th August 2003 rendered in Regular Criminal Case No. 250 of 1996 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Malkapur whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the offence under Sections 6 and 7 (I) read with Section 2 (ia) (a) (b) (j) punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (ii) and offence under Section 7 (ii) read with Section 2 (ix) (d) punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (I) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Strenuously contends that the learned Magistrate has not applied the spirit of mandatory rules to the facts of the case and, therefore, has wrongly concluded that the benefit of nonobservance of the Rules must go to the respondent.

(3.) Shri Joshi, Learned Counsel For The Respondent, On The Other Hand, submits that there was no compliance of rule 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, which was mandatory. He submits that sample was not sent for reanalysis even though the respondent had deposited requisite charges therefor.